7 hours ago, Sarex said:

I rewatched Maelle's ending on YT... I don't know who picks that and defends it.

Uh, in defense of Maelle's ending - sort of.

It's not that simple. The people, at least the humans, inside the canvas are as real and self-aware, and full of life, as the people in the real world (of the game). Allowing Renoir to erase the canvas is tantamount to allowing him to commit genocide. Yes, picking Maelle's ending means she is very likely to die in Verso's canvas, and both Verso and the last fragment of the real Verso's soul are condemned to suffer (perhaps in perpetuity), but what is that compared to the thousands of - and now without the gommage, potentially many, many more - people of Lumiere living full, happy lives?

Renoir treats Maelle's friends with respect. He apologized for the death and destruction his fight with Aline caused, but he is convinced that as long as Verso's painting exists, it will tear his family apart. The evidence for that is plentiful, hence he says that life keeps forcing cruel choices. It is an incredibly cruel choice to make there, but at the end, it is not his, but the player's. Funnily enough, it's the only real choice you get in the game, but it one of the cruelest choices ever.

Getting Maelle out of the painting is the obviously correct choice from a real world standpoint. It helps her face her life, it helps her kick a dangerous addiction, one that already almost killed her mother. On the other hand, sending your teenaged daughter to rehab usually doesn't mean the death of an entire - very advanced, at that - civilization with their own hopes and dreams, people who have done nothing wrong and just accidentially were created by a family of literal Gods unable to deal with grief and loss in a sensible manner.

Is that really right?

39 minutes ago, majestic said:

Uh, in defense of Maelle's ending - sort of.

It's not that simple. The people, at least the humans, inside the canvas are as real and self-aware, and full of life, as the people in the real world (of the game). Allowing Renoir to erase the canvas is tantamount to allowing him to commit genocide. Yes, picking Maelle's ending means she is very likely to die in Verso's canvas, and both Verso and the last fragment of the real Verso's soul are condemned to suffer (perhaps in perpetuity), but what is that compared to the thousands of - and now without the gommage, potentially many, many more - people of Lumiere living full, happy lives?

Renoir treats Maelle's friends with respect. He apologized for the death and destruction his fight with Aline caused, but he is convinced that as long as Verso's painting exists, it will tear his family apart. The evidence for that is plentiful, hence he says that life keeps forcing cruel choices. It is an incredibly cruel choice to make there, but at the end, it is not his, but the player's. Funnily enough, it's the only real choice you get in the game, but it one of the cruelest choices ever.

Getting Maelle out of the painting is the obviously correct choice from a real world standpoint. It helps her face her life, it helps her kick a dangerous addiction, one that already almost killed her mother. On the other hand, sending your teenaged daughter to rehab usually doesn't mean the death of an entire - very advanced, at that - civilization with their own hopes and dreams, people who have done nothing wrong and just accidentially were created by a family of literal Gods unable to deal with grief and loss in a sensible manner.

Is that really right?

Disagree.

Any proof that characters in the canvas are sentient? Because my interpretation is that they are no more real then what you see on screen. Painting stops existing when Verso’s soul stops painting - because they are not real, they are Verso creation and they are actively painted by him.

[edit]I see paintings as analogy to videogames. They are interactive worlds, the same way games are. It’s hard to let Gustave, Sciel and Co. but not because they are living beings, but because they are compelling characters we spend time with.[/quote]

As I see it, Maele forces Verso’s soul to continue painting and feeding her fantasy, against his will to escape from consequences of her actions.

I do wish Maele’s ending was a bit more bittersweet, rather then full dark. As it is I can’t see it anymore as incresibly selfish and self destructive move on her part.

Edited April 15Apr 15 by Wormerine

1 hour ago, Wormerine said:

CDPR did well meaning into easter european flavours with Witcher.

That's kind of obligatory, with The Witcher being licensed. ie how Sapkowski wrote the source material and who Sapkowski is meant it was always going to be highly slavic. If you didn't want that you'd not have licensed it in the first place. Pre Witcher 3 success at least, to take aspects of the TV series into account.

Of course it is self reinforcing, with CDPR being Polish as well.

(Technically of course they could have gone with some other more generic western aesthetic but that would have been, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid)

Edited April 15Apr 15 by Zoraptor

14 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

That's kind of obligatory, with The Witcher being licensed.

cough, Witcher TV show, cough.

I think it is obvious after IP being successful, but I don't find it too difficult to imagine a suit claiming it's too unfamiliar for mass market to be a safe bet - not that Witcher1 was a mainstream pleaser anyway.

I finished Xenonauts 2. It ends on an alien planet, kind of like the original Xcom. It was a very fun trip and they did a great job of making it playable in a reasonable amount of time, instead of grinding for 80 hours. Of course the option is there to play it like Long War, but I was glad it was respectful of my time.

I lost 10 soldiers overall. They all went out bravely. Except that one guy who got friendly fired. Nobody liked him and he had bad stats.

9 hours ago, Wormerine said:

Disagree.

Any proof that characters in the canvas are sentient? Because my interpretation is that they are no more real then what you see on screen. Painting stops existing when Verso’s soul stops painting - because they are not real, they are Verso creation and they are actively painted by him.

[edit]I see paintings as analogy to videogames. They are interactive worlds, the same way games are. It’s hard to let Gustave, Sciel and Co. but not because they are living beings, but because they are compelling characters we spend time with.[/quote]

As I see it, Maele forces Verso’s soul to continue painting and feeding her fantasy, against his will to escape from consequences of her actions.

I do wish Maele’s ending was a bit more bittersweet, rather then full dark. As it is I can’t see it anymore as incresibly selfish and self destructive move on her part.

Let me guess, in The Measure of a Man, you side with Bruce Maddox, right? :p

There is no direct proof either way, but bits and pieces pulling in one direction or another. Painted Alicia very clearly says she envies those who "know not, that they are not", but even that is, in itself, circular. It means that she is aware that she is a painted character and doesn't consider herself a real person, but she's clearly self-aware enough to make that realization in the first place, and draw conclusions from it. She's also suffering immensely as a consequence of Aline's grief, and it could be her way to cope.

Lune and Sciel certainly don't act like holodeck characters when faced with the portal to the real world - or more likely, Maelle's canvas, which is where she hid Verso's, I think - in Versos ending, and Lune immediately understands what is going on and wants to explore and know more. Sciel kills herself deliberately. These are not the actions of characters that are fundamentally just parts of a simulation, unless you think they were painted with these abilities to better mimick actual people.

The biggest point though is this: the characters are clearly sentient enough that their creators feel guilt, shame, and the need to ask forgiveness — and the game/story treats that need as meaningful, not mistaken. Renoir's apology to painted Verso would not be necessary or this heartfelt if Renoir would not think of this creation of Aline's as an actual person experiencing unfair suffering for what something that lies beyond his agency.

Verso in turn can't even address Renoir properly. He knows he's an imposter, as far as him being Verso vis-a-vis the real Verso's father. Painted Verso was for sure not painted with the desire to die, he developed that on his own. Unless you believe Renoir painted over Verso, that alone shows he's sentient enough as he transcends the boundaries of the existence he was created for.

Or, ask yourself this: if we'd move the entire setting of the game to a sci-fi movie or TV show where the canvas is a Star Trek like holodeck, would we really argue about the characters being sentient? Moriarty was considered sentient for much less than the characters exhibit in this game. If it's good enough for Picard, it sure should be good enough for us, no?

So I started playing Hades 2 yesterday and have just discovered that it has this ridiculous new mechanic where, if the game determines you're progressing through the game too fast (in terms of number of deaths), it will start applying a stacking debuff to you which increases the damage you take by an increasing amount for each subsequent level you clear.

Supposedly the reasoning for this mechanic is that they don't want you to clear the next bit of content before the game has the opportunity to show you the various cutscenes and dialogue relating to the current biome/boss. But this is an absurdly ham-fisted approach to the supposed problem and it's definitely soured me on the game significantly even if it's only a temporary inconvenience. The only reason this isn't a bigger deal is that this apparently stops happening after you die 10 times in total, but that's 10 too many times putting up with this nonsense.

9 hours ago, majestic said:

Uh, in defense of Maelle's ending - sort of.

It's not that simple. The people, at least the humans, inside the canvas are as real and self-aware, and full of life, as the people in the real world (of the game). Allowing Renoir to erase the canvas is tantamount to allowing him to commit genocide. Yes, picking Maelle's ending means she is very likely to die in Verso's canvas, and both Verso and the last fragment of the real Verso's soul are condemned to suffer (perhaps in perpetuity), but what is that compared to the thousands of - and now without the gommage, potentially many, many more - people of Lumiere living full, happy lives?

Renoir treats Maelle's friends with respect. He apologized for the death and destruction his fight with Aline caused, but he is convinced that as long as Verso's painting exists, it will tear his family apart. The evidence for that is plentiful, hence he says that life keeps forcing cruel choices. It is an incredibly cruel choice to make there, but at the end, it is not his, but the player's. Funnily enough, it's the only real choice you get in the game, but it one of the cruelest choices ever.

Getting Maelle out of the painting is the obviously correct choice from a real world standpoint. It helps her face her life, it helps her kick a dangerous addiction, one that already almost killed her mother. On the other hand, sending your teenaged daughter to rehab usually doesn't mean the death of an entire - very advanced, at that - civilization with their own hopes and dreams, people who have done nothing wrong and just accidentially were created by a family of literal Gods unable to deal with grief and loss in a sensible manner.

Is that really right?

Spoilers

I agree with @Wormerine on this. The beings in the canvas are just facets of the people who created them. Painted Verso struggles with that throughout the whole game. It's even reinforced when Maelle ungommages Lune and Sciel and says that she is able to bring back everyone. The world doesn't exist without Verso's soul being there to keep it going. Perhaps Esquie is the best example of this. He is the most powerful painted being in the canvas and he is forever unchaining, he never steps outside the bounds his creator painted him in.

Renoir is trying to communicate with Alicia who is very distraught and unwilling to accept reality, so he is trying not to lose her even though he knows there is nothing he can do. He probably even feels something towards the canvas as it's the last peace of Verso he has left, but saying that you can see how he reacts to Painted Verso, or better to say his lack of reaction.

Is it sad that the Canvas had to be lost, sure, but it's sad in the same vein as losing a game you will never be able to play again or a good story you will never be able to come back to.

3 hours ago, Sarex said:

Spoilers

I agree with @Wormerine on this. The beings in the canvas are just facets of the people who created them. Painted Verso struggles with that throughout the whole game. It's even reinforced when Maelle ungommages Lune and Sciel and says that she is able to bring back everyone. The world doesn't exist without Verso's soul being there to keep it going. Perhaps Esquie is the best example of this. He is the most powerful painted being in the canvas and he is forever unchaining, he never steps outside the bounds his creator painted him in.

Renoir is trying to communicate with Alicia who is very distraught and unwilling to accept reality, so he is trying not to lose her even though he knows there is nothing he can do. He probably even feels something towards the canvas as it's the last peace of Verso he has left, but saying that you can see how he reacts to Painted Verso, or better to say his lack of reaction.

Is it sad that the Canvas had to be lost, sure, but it's sad in the same vein as losing a game you will never be able to play again or a good story you will never be able to come back to.

Needless to say, I disagree.

Voyager analogy

Bob Picardo begins his journey on Voyager as a tool, an emergency hologram, not treated like a person, not even by those who created him. He has no agency, and arguably, no will of his own. That is something that arises from within himself after prolonged exposure pushes his program to develop actual sentience, or personhood, or however you want to call it. The moment he can demonstrably step beyond the boundaries set for him, he becomes a person.

The people of Lumiere start without programming and without constraints, except for the one part where they are generally not aware that they are painted (which, when you think of it, is entirely irrelevant, similarily to how irrelevant it is for us humans if we are real or just a simulation - for us, it makes no difference). They have complete agency within their world, free from any direction by the ones who created them. Unlike the crew of Voyager, their creators treat them with respect. Morally and ethically, this validates their personhood by authority of those that created them. Hell, Renoir concedes that Maelle's friends are right with their argumentation - only that it does not change his outlook. They have this, as a matter of course. The Doctor has to fight for it.

The Doctor also stops existing when someone turns the power off, that argument that Lumiere only exists as long as the canvas (an with it, the part of Verso that he left here) falls somewhat flat, unless we also want to argue that the Doctor on Voyager never really is a person. How does that apply to us? If you turn off the sun, we all die. Doesn't mean we don't exist or are not self-aware.

Do the people of Lumiere have souls? Hell if I know. Hell if I care. I don't find it relevant.

1 hour ago, majestic said:

Needless to say, I disagree.

Voyager analogy

Bob Picardo begins his journey on Voyager as a tool, an emergency hologram, not treated like a person, not even by those who created him. He has no agency, and arguably, no will of his own. That is something that arises from within himself after prolonged exposure pushes his program to develop actual sentience, or personhood, or however you want to call it. The moment he can demonstrably step beyond the boundaries set for him, he becomes a person.

The people of Lumiere start without programming and without constraints, except for the one part where they are generally not aware that they are painted (which, when you think of it, is entirely irrelevant, similarily to how irrelevant it is for us humans if we are real or just a simulation - for us, it makes no difference). They have complete agency within their world, free from any direction by the ones who created them. Unlike the crew of Voyager, their creators treat them with respect. Morally and ethically, this validates their personhood by authority of those that created them. Hell, Renoir concedes that Maelle's friends are right with their argumentation - only that it does not change his outlook. They have this, as a matter of course. The Doctor has to fight for it.

The Doctor also stops existing when someone turns the power off, that argument that Lumiere only exists as long as the canvas (an with it, the part of Verso that he left here) falls somewhat flat, unless we also want to argue that the Doctor on Voyager never really is a person. How does that apply to us? If you turn off the sun, we all die. Doesn't mean we don't exist or are not self-aware.

Do the people of Lumiere have souls? Hell if I know. Hell if I care. I don't find it relevant.

Reply

Again you are touching on the point of it, but not fully committing to it. The beings in the canvas are what they are painted to be, nothing more and nothing less. Just as painted Verso is a copy of the real one so are the people of Lumiere the copies of humans. They are what their creators made them to be and limited to that point of view unable to move from it, where as the doctor became something more that what he was programmed to be. This is less apparent with the humans of Lumiere, but more obvious with the other creatures. There are some exceptions like the white Nevrons, but even that was covered by an explanation from Blanche, saying that it was created to exterminate the failed Nevrons. In fact it may be the only being in that world that defied its programing, or as Blanche is a white Nevron it may be a failed creation too (does that mean that Aline made a mistake from the start or that Blanche was able to become more than it was intended to be). Which shows you just how much Aline considered them to be "real". Renoir concedes that they are right from their point of view and acknowledges that, it's just that he has a wider view. I doubt Renoir would have had the same discussion if he had been in the real world talking to real people.

As for the power source of the Canvas/Doctor, I think that is a false comparison. But as I am not religious I will not go further in to it. I will just say this, the sun doesn't suffer for existing, nor does the electricity.

Edited April 16Apr 16 by Sarex

5 hours ago, Humanoid said:

putting up with this nonsense.

I've solved my own problem by just directly changing the (de)buff values. They're stored in plain text, to give credit to Supergiant for making things accessible and easy to change.

XboxGames\Hades II\Content\Content\Scripts\TraitData.lua

BaseDamageMultiplierAddition = 0.0,
PerEncounterDamageMultiplierAddition = 0.0,

5 hours ago, majestic said:

Let me guess, in The Measure of a Man, you side with Bruce Maddox, right? :p

Or, ask yourself this: if we'd move the entire setting of the game to a sci-fi movie or TV show where the canvas is a Star Trek like holodeck, would we really argue about the characters being sentient? Moriarty was considered sentient for much less than the characters exhibit in this game. If it's good enough for Picard, it sure should be good enough for us, no?

I missed this post. I'll touch on one point in it.

Reply

So would you condemn a writer for killing his character? They are no less real in his mind, they evolve and respond to meet the situation the writer puts in front of them, each one is unique and "human". They don't exist outside the writers head and the writer can do whatever he wants to them. He can even become the slave of his own fantasy.

Edited April 16Apr 16 by Sarex

8 hours ago, majestic said:

Let me guess, in The Measure of a Man, you side with Bruce Maddox, right? :p

but she's clearly self-aware enough to make that realization in the first place, and draw conclusions from it. She's also suffering immensely as a consequence of Aline's grief, and it could be her way to cope.

Lune and Sciel certainly don't act like holodeck characters when faced with the portal to the real world - or more likely, Maelle's canvas, which is where she hid Verso's, I think - in Versos ending, and Lune immediately understands what is going on and wants to explore and know more. Sciel kills herself deliberately. These are not the actions of characters that are fundamentally just parts of a simulation, unless you think they were painted with these abilities to better mimick actual people.

(...)

Verso in turn can't even address Renoir properly. He knows he's an imposter, as far as him being Verso vis-a-vis the real Verso's father. Painted Verso was for sure not painted with the desire to die, he developed that on his own. Unless you believe Renoir painted over Verso, that alone shows he's sentient enough as he transcends the boundaries of the existence he was created for.

You see, I don't see painted characters even as a form of magical AI (and by that I mean proper SF AI, not current real life gen language models - which now when I think of it, E33 painting could be somewhat similar to current day "recreate your loved dead one AI"). I see them as characters - no more real, then pixels you are staring at when playing the game. The way I understand it the remains of Verso souls are continuing painting, like a Dungeon Master of this world. He is behind the characters. I don't think they exist in a real way. By destroying the painting, you destroy Verso's last artwork and the last piece of him, but not a world of sentient beings. Lune, Sciel, Verso they don't "think", they are painted that way. It doesn't mean you can't get attached to them. Lune's stare haunts me to this day, but I know she is just a character. Even more impactful for Dessendre's where some of the painted characters resemble their family members from "good old days", and entering the painting seems far more immersive and long term then playing the game.

We are, of course, talking about how "painting" works in this universe that is never really explored, so I don't think that can convincingly argue either way. But story wise, I don't think painting was ever meant to be treated as sentient beings. The story is about Dessendre family and their grief. Their final choice isn't about "save Maelle or condemn a whole painted universe of people", it's about "face the guilt and loss of the loved one and grief vs. find comfort and distraction in a made up fantasy world". The final choice is about Maelle and Dessendre family, the painted world doesn't even come into equation. Will you respect Maelle's wish to abandon her real life and die in a comforting fantasy, or take it away from her in hopes that she will power through grief and find a way to live again. Which I think is a fine choice, and my only complaint is that I think the game judges you pretty hard, if you side with Maelle - the game's authors finish the game with a message rather then with open question. I always prefer open questions.

My main reason for not thinking painting characters are real, is that it would mess up game's message. Painted Lumiere is just a reflection of real world, and Dessendre's grief finds its reflection in this world - it is not a seperate thing. I think E33 is more of a fairy tale world, then a fantasy. An allegory through a fantastical story. Like there are films and films, I think this is a game about games - or specifically using games as a form of escapism from real life problems. It can be comforting for a while, but will kill you if you let it consume you. The concept of a painted world you can run around in works IMO so well, because as players we are running around in a digitally painted world. In universe painting are of course more reactive and flexible, but I think at its core it is the same concept.

Edited April 16Apr 16 by Wormerine

Crimson Desert - because I have nothing else I feel like playing/revisiting - Windrose looks maybe fun but early access and not in the mood for that.

Maybe 100+ (?) hours now. I've spent too much time upgrading the Camp, because it now increases stash-storage space (1000 at max, which is a bit overkill, I'll stop before that), and I wanted to do it as much as possible before moving main quest farther. It's a lot of boring mini quests and waiting, then waiting some more. So while I'm waiting I've explored the world/done small side quests, done Research. I think I have about 38% of the map uncovered (not fully explored), swam many rivers, climbed many snowy peaks, jogged across sands and puddle hopped through rainforest. I'd guess Skyrim's entire map would fit into a tiny micro-corner of CD's map. I have over 1000 "knowledge" entries - faction knowledge, animal/plant knowledge etc - out of nearly 3000. I avoid most hostile POI's for fear of breaking future quests re: MQ gating, but I've defeated several side/world bosses. Mostly fun.

Yet strangely, I kind of want to start over with one of the earlier patches. For reasons.

I kept a backup of an earlier version and older saves (not the release-day version, alas). I almost feel like going back to that version for a while, but that would = repeating hours of the banal stuff.

I'm not that much of a masochist. I think.

I've been playing Windrose. It is basically Conan Exiles with pirates. It is pretty well developed for an early access game.

+ Character generator nails the leathery Caribbean pirate vibe.

+ Crafting is really good. You raise the comfort level of your base as you go, and that buffs your character.

+ Story and characters are decent. The NPC's are interesting and the world is engaging

+Graphics are good and the weather effects are fantastic. It's still a little rough around the edges.

It's probably still got a lot of time left in the oven, but I'm enjoying it. I'm terrible at ship combat, though. It's a skill issue, I think.

Does anyone play Forza Horizon. I feel like delving in with something new to me.

I finished Possessor(s) a week ago and was quite happy with the game, some jank aside (mostly, the collectibles and the map). I liked the exploration and the boss battles, with the difficulty increasing as bosses were losing health.

---

I have started Symphony of War: The Nephilim Saga. It is a tactical game in a fantasy setting. Unless there is a major plot twist at the end, it is fairly generic. The tactical combat and character development feel satisfying, with the "one more turn" lasting for 5 hours. The complexity is unbelievable for an RPGMaker game - there are squads, large maps, functional UI with mouse support. I think there is a perma death mode, but it is optional.

The drawback is that the story and the narrative are hard to take seriously. The high-fantasy writing style is consistent - the generals and the farmers have a different manner of speech and the narrator leans towards the former, so it is not as obnoxious as it was with Gedonia. You can also just hire new units on the market, instead of waiting for your party members to multiply, which is most welcome (the last game of this type that I played is Fire Emblem: Fates).

Crimson Desert -

---my camp finally has a barber. You cannot change Kliff's face, so I tried trimming his beard a bit and cutting/coloring his hair. But then I missed his glorious, dark, wind swept locks and reverted to original hair. I kept the more tidy beard.
---I climbed a snow peak, because a giant tower was on the top and was curious. Was almost to the top when a cutscene suddenly swept me away into a tower locked boss fight with a flying wizard. Killed me a couple times with nasty air attacks. So I countered with my magic swirly repel+attack to dmg. and knocked him down on his butt a few times to wail on him and win. guess I'm OP now. then the area teleported me to an Abyss/puzzle (sky) location. Said "nah" and went back to the ground.
---I climbed another snowy peak in the middle of nowhere. Looked down upon a big square courtyard type building surrounded with lava rivers. Thought to myself "bet that's a story boss location" and left without bothering to go down and look.
---saw a woman in a tent mumbling about the cold. Could have run past, but started a fire for her. She thanked me then teleported away, asking me to visit. eg, I found my 3rd Witch. That was a pretty out of the way location. Wonder where the 4th will be.
--found a couple caves full of gold ore to mine and some treasures (that I don't need, but hey, it's treasure).

Game is definitely its best when random exploring. Unfortunate that MQ gates so many quests and even npc's etc. But yet, I think if you rush MQ toooo fast, you might lock yourself out of certain things/small quests without realizing. So game still has poor management? telegraphing? information? lack of dev foresight? in that fashion.

Edited April 19Apr 19 by LadyCrimson

Going to give Neo Cab a spin, although I suspect this was a waste of money. Replayed Consortium, have not changed my previous opinion that it's a game with good bones that a better developer should have taken

I've been continuing on with my very first BG3 playthrough and am now, finally after months!, almost at the end, about to head out to the final confrontation. And, nothing has changed in my view of the game. As I've said before, the game is fantastic on such things as graphics, cinematics, and cut scenes, the game is very big, and its main story is quite epic and compelling (though with some questionable areas). But in so many other ways, ways that are much more important to a CRPG, it is a weak game. Most of the companions were not at all likeable, with the mild exceptions only of Karlach and, surprisingly, Minthara. The rest were all whiney, angst-ridden prima donnas. I especially hated what they had done to both Jaheira and Minsc, and was utterly appalled by the "new canon" for Viconia. The side quests were meh, and a lot of the areas in Act II were a slog. Despite the claim that combat encounters were/would be fewer in number and more interesting, I found the number of encounters to be no less/different than in any other RTwP RPG and, as I'd expected for TB combat, very frustrating and aggravating and boring. Thankfully, due to mods allowing me to go with larger parties, I was able to breeze through virtually every combat encounter within 2-3 rounds. Not being able to "pause" the game during real-time exploration was a huge pain, especially when trying to be stealthy (and being forced to go into TB mode), as was how party movement is set up, with, for example, party members walking through traps and mines they themselves just announced having discovered. And the UIs were atrocious across the board. The quick access bar was surely the worst, but other UIs were pretty bad/non-intuitive as well, including inventory management.

This is not by any means an exhaustive list of the ways the game falls short, but covers some of the biggest failings in my personal opinion. My rating of the game would be a C+ (77/100).

Edited April 19Apr 19 by kanisatha

Just finished the latest Life is Strange game. Was much better than the last 2 or 3 of them that I've played. Guess they had too big plants with Double Exposure, those didn't work out, and then they cut a lot of stuff which is why the game feels the way it does. Reunion has a much more clear vision and pacing because of that. Generally I enjoyed it, but you can feel that they shifted the story from the last game to something completely different. Maybe they panicked and needed some win, which is why they brought Chloe back.

Funny thing.. sometimes, the Max-acting feels like she's a bit retarded, lol. This worked a lot better when she was still young in the first game. Now at times, she's acting kinda... slow.

Edited April 19Apr 19 by Lexx

Old thread:

Enshrouded - huge patch. Combat changes. Gear changes, mechanic changes. Forced skill tree reset. Feels like 1/4 of the long time player base hates it/quit the game. Not sure it's quite that bad, but nothing I care about so I may not update it. It at least has the excuse of Early Access re: mega changes.

Crimson Desert - huuuuge patch. Initially broke stuff. Hotfix. Multi-storage changes. Skill changes. Nerfs. 3-tier difficulty mode added. Control changes (still can't rebind WASD or some others). Fluff added (more cats, more outfits etc). Pet's ability to loot for you still seems half-broken. Still the worst implementation (graphically) of DLSS (major noise, ghosting in some scenarios, blur for some people) I've seen in years and all they do is focus on ray reconstruction improvement (noise goes away if you turn that on, pfft). I'm going back to previous version and probably staying there until I "finish" the game.

semi-rant

I'm all for QoL (bigger stash? sure) and options (difficulty options? added end-game activtives? sure), bug, stability, and sure, extra cats, why not, but I'm so fed up with feeling like every 2-3 months (or weeks) a game is no longer the same game I paid for. And half of it, in my mind, is because the "masses" whine and demand that every game be like/have the same features of a previous favorite game, and the dev's constantly capitulate. So in the end it's all the same slop.

Frustrating as I found these two games in a love/hate kind of way, at the same time, at least they felt a bit different. Every patch slowly removes that individuality. It's tiresome. Even Teddy's Heaven is going that way - pretty soon it'll just be another tired same-y "shop" game.

Yes, I know, sometimes constant patching works in favor. I'm just saying.

end-rant

Edited Friday at 01:24 AM4 days by LadyCrimson

Got the Soul Reaver remake. It looks like I imagined the original. I have little recollection of the combat and the story (got cooler than the boss => got kicked into a whirlpool => must get revenge), so it is nice to rediscover them. The lack of the thumb mouse button support is less nice, but generally fine.

---

Regarding updates, I suppose my main issue is that now purchasing a game on release is effectively being a paying beta-tester, while each and every patch breaks things and, in the case of Steam, prevents you from playing. Mind, previously, what was broken stayed broken, so you could end up with a non-functioning or incredibly buggy game, but the current approach encourages the developers to release MVP and patch later.

Thus, unless you really know and love the particular developer, waiting for at least a year or two usually provides a better experience. On the other hand, e.g., the Eternal Strands devs removed the DX11 support in one of the patches and rolling back on anything but Steam is impossible. That is to say, the experience can get worse and the game can become just unplayable.

May UE5 be sunsetted.

---

Symphony of War, the DLC. There is a decent variety of missions, though they do not continue the main story and are various side missions (happening before the main story). I guess, however cheesy the main story was, I did appreciate it existing. Still, the main squads can be deployed there, so it is a good way for the lower level ones to gain XP, as the missions are mostly easier (not all, but most so far). Some bits are odd, e.g. some characters are shown as knowing each other, but it was never shown in the base game.

Vampire Crawlers.

It's not as good Vampire Survivors, but it's fun enough. Only played about 4 hours, so maybe it'll turn as ridiculous as Survivors does when you get far enough, dunno.

Basically, Survivors is fun because it doesn't take too much thinking so you can play it while doing something else, or when you want to zone out. Crawlers takes a bit more thinking (only very slightly bit more), while being similarly simple, so it doesn't really fill the same niche in my gameplaying needs as Survivor does.